5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Solyanoye in the Krasnodar Region.
6.  On 25 March 1993 Ms N., the applicant's former partner, brought an action against him seeking recognition of her rights in respect of the house registered in the applicant's name. The applicant brought a counter-action seeking division of her property.
7.  On 16 February 1995 the Dinskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region granted N.'s claims in part and dismissed the applicant's claims. On 16 April 1996 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of 16 February 1995 on appeal and sent the matter for fresh consideration.
8.  On 10 June 1996 the Prikubanskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region approved a friendly settlement agreement entered into by the applicant and N. and discontinued the proceedings. The applicant appealed. On 18 July 1996 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 10 June 1996 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
9.  On 15 August 1997 the Prikubanskiy District Court granted N.'s claims in part and dismissed the applicant's claims. On 18 September 1997 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15 August 1997 on appeal and again remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
10.  On 27 March 1998 the Dinskiy District Court dismissed all the claims and counterclaims in full. On 21 May 1998 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 27 March 1998 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
11.  On 21 June 2001, the Dinskiy District Court granted N.'s claims in part. On 6 September 2001 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 21 June 2001 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
12.  On 4 March 2002 the Dinskiy District Court ordered the applicant to pay N. 103,960 Russian roubles (RUB) in reimbursement for her expenses incurred during the construction of his house. The applicant's counterclaims were dismissed. On 2 April 2002 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 4 March 2002 on appeal.
13.  On 10 April 2002 the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 4 March 2002.
14.  On 5 July 2002 the bailiff seized the applicant's house and car. On an unspecified date, at the applicant's request, the courts lifted the seizure order in respect of the car.
15.  On 24 October 2002 the applicant paid the judgment debt owed to N. and the bailiff closed the enforcement proceedings.
16.  It appears that on an unspecified date the seizure order was lifted in respect of the house and the applicant sold it.
17.  On 23 January 2003 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgments of 4 March 2002 and 2 April 2002 by way of a supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
18.  On 17 April 2003 the Dinskiy District Court dismissed N.'s claims.
19.  On 23 December 2003 the Regional Court gave a final judgment ordering N. to repay the applicant the monies awarded to her by the judgment of 4 March 2002. It appears that that decision was enforced shortly thereafter.
20.  On 14 September 2004 the Regional Court gave a final judgment dismissing the applicant's complaint about the allegedly unlawful seizure of his house by the bailiff as time-barred.
21.  On 17 June 2005 the Pervomaiskiy District Court of Krasnodar dismissed the applicant's action against the bailiff for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The court, however, ordered that the applicant be repaid the enforcement fee of RUB 7,278.
22.  On an unspecified date, the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the Treasury. On 15 July 2005 the Treasury returned the writ of execution to the applicant advising him to resubmit it to the Ministry of Justice.
23.  On 3 August 2005 the applicant asked the Pervomaiskiy District Court to clarify the part of the judgment of 17 June 2005 concerning its enforcement. On 24 August 2005 the Pervomaiskiy District Court held that the award was to be paid by the Ministry of Finance.
24.  On 4 October 2005 the applicant resubmitted the writ to the Treasury. On 10 October 2005 the Treasury returned the writ to the applicant advising him to lodge it with the bailiff.
25.  On 9 December 2005 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance. On 9 March 2006 the Ministry of Finance returned the writ of execution advising the applicant that the District Court had erred in its indication of who was liable for the judgment debt. In the Ministry's view, the District Court should have specified that it was the Treasury and not the Ministry.
26.  On 10 May 2006 the applicant resubmitted the writ of execution and accompanying documents. On 9 November 2006 the Ministry of Finance asked him for his bank details.
27.  On 28 December 2006 the judgment in the applicant's favour was enforced.
28.  On 19 March 2008 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Finance and the Treasury seeking compensation for damage resulting from the excessive length of the proceedings concerning the property dispute with his former partner. The applicant asked the court to award him RUB 200,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and RUB 2,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
29.  On 12 May 2008 the Pervomaiskiy District Court of Krasnodar granted the applicant's claims in full in respect of pecuniary damage and in part in respect of non-pecuniary damage and awarded him RUB 100,000 under that head. The court indicated that it had made the assessment of the non-pecuniary damage on an equitable basis and took into account the applicant's “advanced age, health condition and disability”. The applicant appealed, asking the court to increase the amount of compensation awarded for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
30.  On 28 August 2008 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment of 12 May 2008 on appeal. As regards the pecuniary damage, the court noted that the District Court had granted the applicant's claims in full and there was no reason to increase that amount. Had the applicant considered it necessary to increase his claims in this respect, he should have done so before the court at the first level of jurisdiction.
31.  On 17 September 2008 the applicant received the monies.